The contempt of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

Nobody seems to have come out very well from the Tommy Robinson case. What went wrong?

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Robinson’s real name) fell foul of contempt laws in May 2017. The ex-leader of the English Defence League went to Canterbury intending to film four men on trial for rape. That was thwarted when the judge arranged for the defendants and jury to leave by a back door. But Yaxley-Lennon recorded himself speaking to camera inside and outside the courthouse, describing the defendants as ‘Muslim child rapists’ in a video published online.

Tommy Robinson

Judge Norton, who was hearing the case, found Yaxley-Lennon in contempt of court. She agreed to suspend a three-month prison sentence, warning him that it would be activated if he prejudiced any other pending trial by asserting that the defendants were guilty.

The judge’s finding was wrongly recorded as a conviction for criminal offence. But, said the Court of Appeal in August, this was an error of form rather than substance and Yaxley-Lennon was not prejudiced by other procedural errors.

A year after his warning at Canterbury, Yaxley-Lennon stood outside Leeds Crown Court and livestreamed himself, on Facebook, speaking about a trial which could not at that stage be reported. A total of 29 men had been sent for trial accused of raping and sexually exploiting girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

Because there were so many defendants, the court had ordered three separate trials. To avoid prejudicing the second and third juries, none of the proceedings could be reported until the third trial ended last month. At that point, we heard that 20 men had been convicted. The ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 18 years.

Yaxley-Lennon’s live stream was broadcast while the jury in the second trial was considering its verdict. It appears to show him confronting defendants as they arrived at court. He referred to charges that the prosecution had dropped and of which the jury was unaware.

Yaxley-Lennon will have been advised that overlapping restrictions in this area are immensely difficult to understand, even for judges

Judge Marson QC, who was hearing all three cases, was concerned that this might derail the current trial and prejudice the one that had yet to start. Yaxley-Lennon agreed to delete his video from Facebook. A lawyer was found to represent him and, later that same day, Marson found him in contempt. If Yaxley-Lennon had not admitted his guilt, the sentence would have been 15 months. The judge reduced it to 10 months and activated the three months that had been suspended in Canterbury.

Unfortunately, if understandably, Marson acted too hastily. Once the video had been deleted from Facebook, he could have adjourned the case for a few days — as Norton had done — or asked the attorney general to consider bringing contempt proceedings instead. That would have avoided the procedural and other errors that led to unfairness. Yaxley-Lennon’s appeal was allowed, he was released after serving 10 weeks and a rehearing was ordered before the recorder of London, Judge Hilliard QC. The Court of Appeal invited the attorney general to nominate an ‘advocate’ for the new hearing, stressing that the case should be ‘presented bysomeone other than a judge’.

But, once again, things went wrong. The attorney nominated an ‘advocate to the court’ — what we used to call an amicus. Under arrangements agreed in 2001, an advocate to the court is not allowed to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses. So the advocate, Angus McCullough QC, was unable to do what the appeal judges envisaged or what Hilliard needed.

Whose fault was that? McCullough pointed out that the Court of Appeal could have referred the case to the attorney general — which is what it said Marson should have done.

Hilliard had initially thought he could decide the contempt case himself, with McCullough’s assistance. But Yaxley-Lennon’s counsel argued that the case should be referred to the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox QC MP, for a decision on whether to proceed. Because Yaxley-Lennon was now denying that his video was prejudicial — and so could expect cross-examination — Hilliard agreed. Unless Cox is persuaded to drop the case, it will be argued in full before a Queen’s Bench divisional court.

An unusual aspect of this case is that Yaxley-Lennon paid the solicitors Kingsley Napley to train him in contempt law. He will have been advised that overlapping restrictions in this area are immensely difficult to understand, even for judges. But he believes he kept within them.

In his witness statement, Yaxley-Lennon argued that instead of restricting media reports ahead of a trial we should trust juries to try cases on the evidence presented to them. I have argued the same myself in the past. But until the law is changed, I try to observe it. That was why uncomprehending critics — particularly in the US — had to be kept in the dark until the three Leeds trials had concluded.

Have your say

Only registered users can comment on this article.

Yes, the police have behaved disgracefully over the issue of child sex/rape gangs. Their collaboration with such gangs does not reduce racial tensions at all - quite the reverse. The law must be applied to all who break the law of the land, regardless of race.

This case highlights the failure of the police to do their job properly, and sadly also the failings of at least one member of the judiciary. A judge who has wrongly sent someone to prison through not understanding the law, should seriously consider whether he is fit for purpose. People are losing faith in the Establishment.

It is worrying when judges send people to prison, when they don't have a full understanding of the relevant law. In this case, Yaxley-Lennon has gained useful media exposure and the law has (again) been shown to be something of an ass.

From the moment Robinson was arrested outside the court in Leeds it was one farce after another... The Judge Marson trial took less time than the video so obviously, he had not fully examined the only real evidence he was about to find him guilty and sentence him to prison. For Judge Marson to lawfully find him guilty he would have to agree that the actions of Robinson did 'Substantially' impede or jeopardise an ongoing trial, that is the criteria for contempt when using strict liability as he did. That is clearly not the case as he did not divulge any information that was not already publically available,

One of the main reasons why the appeal judge quashed the sentence is because it was clear that Robinson was not given the opportunity to enter any plea, that is in the judgement (At least that one is accessible as Judge Marson's seems to have been lost somewhere), so no he did not plead guilty and his sentence was not reduced because of it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Yaxley/Robinson this was a complete miscarriage of justice from start to finish and I am appalled that not a single member of the judiciary has had the balls to actually stand up and admit that. Law is the thread that holds the very fabric of society together and here in the UK that thread is fraying very thin due to instances like this and they seem to be becoming far more frequent.

With respect JR, you've provided some rather laboured answers on this thread.

You were asked if Robinson actually pleaded guilty. Your response was that the CA acknowledged "the judge proceeded on the basis that the appellant had admitted his contempt."

Yes, we all know the judge proceeded on that basis. The point is the judge was plainly wrong. [64] of the CA judgment confirms that no proper particulars of the contempt were ever formulated. Clearly, you cannot plead guilty when you do not know what you're pleading guilty to.

Similarly, you were also asked if, with regard to the charges, Robinson was (as he claims) merely reading from a publicly available news source made before restrictions were made (that claim is recorded at [23] of the judgment). Your answer - that Robinson referred to charges not proceeded with - doesn't address that specific question.

The main stream media reported that Yaxley-Lennon was released on a mere technicality. Anybody who has read the court of appeal judgment will know that it was more than a mere technicality. It is fake news designed to mislead the general public.

Judge Marson did indeed proceed as is said. However at paragraph 20 and 64 of the Court of Appeal Judgment it is suggested that Marson was wrong to proceed on that basis. At para 64 it is said no particulars of the contempt were ever formulated or put to Yaxley-Lennon and further that there was a muddle over what the contempt actually was.

So the answer to anon @ 0832 seems to be that Yaxley-Lennon is telling the truth. He did not plead guilty. Whats more (i) he was not given the opportunity to plead guilty and (ii) no coherent allegations were put to him. Yet he was locked up and Judge Marson gagged the reporting of this.

Like him or loath Tommy Robinson, the treatment of him by Judge Marson was disgraceful.

I am very surprised that Mr Rosenberg appears not to have read the Court of Appeal Judgment.

Quite frankly you really should not believe anything the main stream media tell you. At the weekend, the Times headlined that a reduction in university fees would hit the poorest students. How exactly? The repayment of fees is based on future earnings. The media is destroying itself by peddling persistent fake news to appease the liberal elite.

I understand from my daughter who is in the final year of her A Levels that the support and enthusiasm for Tommy Robinson is enormous. I am not talking about a "sink" school but a school that is rated as "outstanding". When you start looking behind the fake news of much of the media, you actually begin to understand that Yaxley-Lennon does make some valid arguments. All Judge Marson did is reinforce the narrative that the media elites and the establishment want to shut down Tommy Robinson and reduce his support. In fact quite the opposite has happened.

The bigger story really is whether the media blackouts are to do with ensuring fair justice or trying to preserve social harmony. What is the justification for not reporting on the third trial until the verdicts were given when there were no subsequent trials to report on? Why did the media not challenge this? Why is the media all over the likes of Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Neil Fox, Paul Gambaccini and so willing to report on accusations but not willing to challenge media restrictions that are simply misguided?

The only person who actually has come out of this well is Tommy Robinson. It is a pity perhaps that Judge Marson did not think about the consequences of his actions before he did what he did.

One reader asks whether Yaxley-Lennon actually paid Kingsley Napley. In his witness statement, he says: "I privately paid for training with one of London's leading law firms..."

Another reader questions whether Yaxley-Lennon referred to charges that had not been proceeded with. This was what the Court of Appeal said (paragraph 17). Angus McCullough QC adds these were charges of which the jury were not aware (amended submissions, paragraph 14 (iii)).

A third reader says my use of the word "guilt" is misleading because contempt is not a crime. I can see it would have been better, though repetitious, to have said that he admitted his "contempt".

Presumably the thumbs down people at Anon 14:31 think it is ok not to publicise the child rapes of white young girls committed by muslim Asian (Pakistani) MEN. Why? because they are the people who created a society that you were racist if you criticised anyone of colour. It is the liberal elite who should be blamed - named and shamed for not protecting white girls (children).

The real "deeply unsavoury" people, apart from the perpetrators, are the police, social workers and politicians who for decades deliberately refused to take action against grooming gangs, apparently because they thought it would be "racist" to do so (though how enforcing the law can be racist just because the offender is of a minority race or religion, I cannot see, especially when a charge of having sex with a minor could have been proved so easily, by means of DNA evidence). There should never have been any need for Yaxley-Lennon to get involved, but unfortunately, until he and a few others started making a public fuss, these crimes went un-prosecuted.

Peter Hain used Parliamentary privilege to divulge information of very little importance prohibited by the Courts that is ok in the eyes of our corrupt Parliamentary system. "Robinson" disclosure was wrong, however, he disclosed Muslim Pakistani men raping white young (children) girls which the public believe is far more in the public interest and he wrongly imprisoned by the corrupt Judiciary. Faith in the system has disappeared.

However unimpressively anyone else may come out of this, the person who yet again reveals himself to be deeply unsavoury, a person of no visible merits and a profoundly underserving cause, is Mr Yaxley-Lennon.

It seems to me that the judge probably "acted too hastily" because of the unusual spectacle that Robinson presented.

Most of us have seen reporters on TV standing outside courthouses during live trials; they do not goad defendants who are on their way in to the building, nor do they offer mocking commentary about their demeanour. Neither do they refer to defendants' religious heritage as being suggestive of guilt.

Media professionals have understood for decades that this is not how it is done, and while they had a virtual monopoly on creating video reports for instant public circulation this kind of contempt of court was never likely to arise.

As such, it not surprising that the judge dealt with Robinson's antics in a summary manner, which under the close scrutiny of the High Court has turned out to have been inadequate. Presumably the next time this kind of thing happens (if it does), the judge involved will have a clearer grasp of what is required to avoid legal challenge.

“He referred to charges that the prosecution had dropped and of which the jury was unaware.”

My understanding is that Robinson says he was simply reading from a BBC news article (or some other mainstream source) which had already listed the defendants and the charges against them. Out of interest, is that factually true or not? If it is, I struggle to see how he can be criticised on this point.

I'm not sure it is THAT understandable. Surely one of the most famous cases is that of Balogh? The bored clerk who was caught trying to release laughing gas in Court and whom the judge sentenced to a week downstairs after the estimable Mr B accused him of being an humourless automaton? The ultimate outcome being that judges should be very, very, very careful when sentencing summarily?

It is such a famous case that Marson ought to have had it at the forefront. It smacked a bit of virtue-signalling...

The Law Society of England and Wales

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession’s regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we’re here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales.